ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Climate Change

Jimmy Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the climate change programme review will be published; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: We are aiming to publish the revised UK Climate Change Programme before the end of the year.

Emissions Trading

Jimmy Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the introduction of the European emission trading scheme on the cost of UK coal; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The cost of supplying UK coal is not directly affected by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Emissions trading impacts the costs of downstream industries which use coal as a primary fuel input and which are captured by the scheme. One of the most important users of coal is the electricity generation industry. The final report of an independent study by Ilex Energy Consulting in 2004 on the impact of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme on the price of electricity for consumers across Europe is available on the Department of Trade and Industry's website (www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/euets.shtml)
	In July 2005, IPA Energy Consulting were commissioned to conduct a study on the impact of the scheme on investment and pricing within the UK power generation sector. The final report will be published on the Department of Trade and Industry's website in due course.

Emissions Trading

Michael Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on UK participation in greenhouse gas emissions trading.

Elliot Morley: The UK is participating in two greenhouse gas trading schemes: the national UK Emissions Trading Scheme and the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
	The UK Emission Trading Scheme has been running since 2002, when 32 companies bid in voluntary emissions reduction targets for a share of Government incentive money. To date, the scheme has achieved emissions reductions of over 12 million tonnes of CO 2 . The scheme has proved a valuable experience for participants, brokers, verifiers and Government ahead of EU and international trading.
	The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is a cost-effective and efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. On Tuesday 24 May 2005, the UK National Allocation Plan (NAP) was published, and the UK Registry went live allowing operators to begin trading.
	The total number of allowances allocated to industry is based on progress beyond our Kyoto target and towards our national goal of a 20 per cent. cut in CO 2 emissions on 1990 levels by 2010. In the first phase (2005–08), the scheme is set to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the UK by around 65 million tonnes carbon dioxide (around 8 per cent.) below projected emissions.
	For Phase II of the EU ETS a major UK priority is to address any gaps, anomalies, or competitive distortions that may have arisen during Phase I, and to look at whether there is scope to include further carbon dioxide emissions from existing sectors. Member states share a desire to move towards greater consistency in coverage and implementation across the EU25 in the second phase, and we are working with other member states and the Commission to discuss harmonisation on a range of key issues relating to the shape and scope of the scheme.

Greenhouse Gases

Jimmy Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by how much greenhouse gas emissions have risen in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The following table shows UK emissions for the six Kyoto greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), the hydrofluorocarbons (MFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ), in million tonnes of carbon equivalent, for each year since 1997. The table also shows the total emissions of the basket of six gases, in million tonnes of carbon equivalent. These figures are taken from the latest UK greenhouse gas inventory.
	
		Million tonnes of carbon equivalent
		
			  1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 
		
		
			 CO 2 153.9 154.5 151.7 152.8 157.4 152.7 156.1 
			 CH 4 16.6 15.7 14.7 13.6 12.8 12.3 11.1 
			 N 2  0 16.6 15.8 12.3 12.2 11.6 11.2 11 
			 HFCs 5.2 4.7 3 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.9 
			 PFCs 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 
			 SF 6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 
			 Total 192.9 191.3 182.1 181.8 185 179.5 181.6 
			 Year on year percentage change — -0.8 -4.8 -0.2 1.8 -3.0 1.2 
		
	
	Total UK greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 5.9 percent. between 1997 and 2003, relative to 1997. The table indicates year-on-year percentage change (negative values indicate a decrease from the previous year and positive an increase from the previous year).

Hazardous Waste

Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons there is no exemption from registration with the Environment Agency under the Hazardous Waste Regulations for construction sites that produce less than 200kg of hazardous waste a year.

Ben Bradshaw: The purpose of site registration is to enable the Environment Agency to better identify those premises producing hazardous waste to facilitate the appropriate inspection of such premises as required by Article 4(1) of the Hazardous Waste Directive, and is consistent with our risk-based approach to regulation. It is recognised that some premises will in general produce only small amounts of relatively lower risk hazardous wastes such as fluorescent tubes and computer monitors, and they are exempt from the requirement to notify where they produce less than 200kg of hazardous waste per year. These premises include shops, offices, pubs, restaurants and farms as well as any establishments producing household waste. Industrial sites, including construction sites, are outside the scope of the exemption since they may produce higher risk waste such as soil contaminated by asbestos, coal tar or oil (all of which are carcinogenic). Nevertheless, there is provision for mobile service operators—such as painters and decorators—to be able to notify the site from which they operate rather than each site they visit where at each of those sites they produce less than 200kg of hazardous waste.

Kyoto Protocol

Jimmy Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the Government plans to meet the Kyoto agreement to cut carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 12.5 percent. by 2010; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Government set out their policy on reducing emissions of the six greenhouse gases covered under the Kyoto Protocol in its publication 'Climate Change: The UK Programme' (CM 4913) in 2000. This publication contains a set of flexible measures covering a range of different sectors—including transport, agriculture, business and households.
	The UK remains on course to meet its Kyoto target of a 12.5 percent. reduction on base year levels by 2008–2012. Details of the reductions in greenhouse gas levels achieved so far, the main measures already in place and future options under consideration to achieve further reductions in greenhouse gas levels are contained in the 2004 'Review of the UK Climate Change Programme Consultation Paper' (PB 10372). A revised Climate Change Programme will be published later this year.

Sewers and Drains

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 7 April 2005, Official Report, column 1672W, on sewers and drains, when the Government intends to publish a decision paper on proposals to transfer ownership of private sewers and lateral drains from property owners to local water companies; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Government intends to publish a decision later this year, but does not rule out the need to consult further on the scope and form of a potential transfer.

CABINET OFFICE

Business Regulation

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to reduce the level of regulation on business.

John Hutton: Yes. Our proposals for better regulation were set out in the March 2005 Budget.
	These reforms will result in year on year reductions in the administrative burdens faced by business and a more proportionate, targeted and risk-based inspection regime.

Lord Birt

Mark Lancaster: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on reports written by Lord Birt since his appointment as an adviser to the Prime Minister.

John Hutton: Lord Birt is the Prime Minister's unpaid Strategy Adviser. He provides the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers with advice on a range of issues. He has contributed to reports in conjunction with the Strategy Unit on London, crime, health, education, transport and drugs.

Better Regulation Executive

Celia Barlow: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Better Regulation Executive report, "Less is More".

John Hutton: The Government published a formal response to the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF) report "Less is More" on 18 July 2005, copies of which are available in the Library. Implementation of the recommendations in the BRTF report is on track. For example:
	In response to the recommendations about making it easier to remove or amend outdated or unnecessary regulation, the Government have already set out their proposals in a consultation document, "A Bill for Better Regulation", published on 20 July 2005.
	On 15 September the Cabinet Office launched a major project to measure and then reduce the amount of paperwork and administration costs that Government regulations impose on British businesses and charities. This will involve extensive interviews with businesses, charities and voluntary organisations to estimate how much it costs them to comply with Government regulations.
	The BRTF also recommended that the Cabinet Office establish "by the end of 2005" a new mechanism for business and other stakeholders to submit regulatory reform proposals to Government. This was launched on 15 September. Details are available at www.betterregulation.gov.uk. Departments and agencies will have 90 working days to respond to such proposals.

Departmental Websites

Sarah Teather: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list websites that come under his Department's responsibility; and what the (a) cost and (b) number of visits was for each in the last year for which figures are available.

Jim Murphy: A table listing the websites within the Department's responsibility and the costs and number of visits for each, has been placed in the Library.
	A website has been determined to be a set of pages under a unique domain name for example, www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk. Costs and traffic for sub-domains and areas within a website for example, www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation, are incorporated within the figures for the main site. A certain number of unique domain names, for example www.chartermark.gov.uk, are just automatic redirectors to the relevant section of another site e.g. www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/chartermark. In such cases, statistics and costs have been included within the main site.

Select Committees

Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes have been made to the advice for officials attending select committees since 1997.

Jim Murphy: Updated guidance for officials attending Select Committees, to take account of changes both in Government and Parliament, was published on 14 July. Copies are available in the Library.

TRANSPORT

Rail Stations (Disability Legislation)

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has undertaken an audit of all rail stations to assess their compliance with disability discrimination legislation.

Karen Buck: I plan to publish a Strategy for Rail Accessibility later this year. This will set out the process for allocating the £370 million "Access for All" fund to improve access to stations for disabled people over the next 10 years. Our aim is to maximise the potential for disabled people to make rail journeys.
	Train operating companies have already carried out access assessments for the Strategic Rail Authority as part of preparing their Disabled Persons Protection Policies.

Saltaire Roundabout

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the traffic problems at the Saltaire roundabout are resolved before the road is detrunked.

Stephen Ladyman: The Highways Agency is in discussion with City of Bradford metropolitan district council to address concerns over detrunking the A629/A650 route.
	One of the issues being considered is the congestion at Saltaire roundabout. A joint study into the issue has been agreed.

Railway Industry (Subsidies)

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to change the level of subsidy for the railway industry.

Alistair Darling: The Government's spending plans for rail until 2008–09 were set out in my statement to Parliament of 10 February.

Rail Services

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve integration of rail services between Network Rail and train operating companies.

Derek Twigg: The changes made by the Railways Act 2005 will ensure that the different parts of the industry work more effectively together—and create the conditions for Network Rail to work more closely with operators. In particular, integrated control offices are being established to improve coordination between Network Rail and operators and ensure trains run more reliably.

Rail Services

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will assess capacity on South West trains following the relocation of 30 units by the Strategic Rail Authority to the Northampton line; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: Network Rail is currently carrying out a route utilisation strategy (RUS) on the SWT route and will be consulting shortly on their initial findings. The RUS concentrates on maximising the passenger and rolling stock capacity of the route to the available infrastructure. The RUS will feed into and help form the timetable for the re-franchising of South West Trains, targeted for 14 months time in February 2007. The franchise specification will also include the efficient deployment of rolling stock to meet capacity requirements.

Rail Services

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Penzance to Paddington rail sleeper service.

Derek Twigg: Bidders are required to include provision for a Paddington to Penzance sleeper in their bids for the new Greater Western franchise. To ensure value for money, however, bidders have also been asked to cost the service and propose alternative ways of serving the overnight market. A decision on the future of the sleeper will be taken in the light of the bids received.

Transport Costs

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change in real terms of the costs of travelling by (a) private car, (b) bus and (c)  train has been since 1997.

Alistair Darling: Between 1997 and 2004 the real cost of motoring declined by 7 per cent., bus and coach fares increased by 11 per cent. and rail fares increased by 4 per cent.

Roads Network (South-east)

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on investment in the roads network in the south-east.

Stephen Ladyman: We announced in December 2004 that the south-east region will receive over £950 million over the next three years for investment in transport schemes of local and regional importance, including roads. This funding is in addition to our funding for road schemes of national importance, such as widening the M25.

Road Schemes (Norfolk)

Richard Bacon: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on major road schemes in Norfolk.

Stephen Ladyman: We announced in December 2004 a programme of major transport schemes which we propose to take forward in the East of England. These include a number of road improvement schemes that will benefit Norfolk.

Nexus Passenger Transport Executive

Sharon Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the funding of the Nexus Passenger Transport Executive in Tyne and Wear; and if he will make a statement.

Karen Buck: In July, Nexus delivered to the Secretary of State their 20-year strategy for capital reinvestment in the Tyne and Wear Metro. DfT officials are considering requests by Nexus for a contribution to development costs for the strategy, for continuing revenue support for the Metro, and for the funding of a quality bus corridor scheme.

Regional Airports

James McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government are taking to support small regional airports.

Karen Buck: The White Paper "The Future of Air Transport" acknowledged the important role played by regional airports and supported their growth to serve regional and local demand. It recognised that limited public funding may be appropriate to support small airports owned by local authorities and those in Objective 1 and 2 areas, and facilitated the use of Route Development Funds to provide start-up aid for new routes from regional airports.

Crossrail/Thameslink

Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the likely impact of Crossrail on links between Gloucestershire and London; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: The numbers and speed of current services between Gloucestershire and London are not expected to be affected by Crossrail during normal operation. The Crossrail project includes significant upgrading of the GWML which will cause some disruption, but not out of line with major upgrading work done elsewhere on the national network.

Crossrail/Thameslink

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has undertaken on the impact of Crossrail construction on road safety in the Spitalfields area.

Derek Twigg: The safety of road users, during both the construction and operation of Crossrail, was considered as part of the Crossrail Transport Assessment, which forms part of the Crossrail Environmental Statement published in February 2005.

Crossrail/Thameslink

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what health and safety impact studies his Department has undertaken on (a) Crossrail and (b) Thameslink options.

Derek Twigg: Cross London Rail Links Limited (CLRLL) has reviewed the health and safety impacts of each element of the Crossrail design and compiled a risk register. This register lists all identified hazards during the construction, operation and maintenance phases of the project and outlines the safety measures envisaged. CLRLL is also carrying out a health impact assessment for the project, which will be published later in the year.
	Responsibility for Thameslink 2000 is a matter for Network Rail. Health and safety studies were undertaken by the project team and were presented to the Thameslink 2000 public inquiry in 2000–01.

Crossrail/Thameslink

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental impact studies his Department has undertaken on (a) Crossrail and (b) Thameslink options.

Derek Twigg: The impacts on the environment arising from the Crossrail project are reported in the Crossrail Environmental Statement (ES) published in February 2005. Additional environmental impact information is provided in the Crossrail Supplementary ES published in May 2005.
	Thameslink 2000 is a matter for Network Rail. Thameslink 2000 was subject to a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in 1997 and again in 1999 resulting in the production of an ES in each of those years, accompanied by the appropriate supporting documentation. A further EIA was undertaken in 2004 the results of which were documented in an ES published in June 2004 (ES2004). Additional EIA work was undertaken in 2005 to update parts of ES2004 and to assess specific potential cumulative effects of concurrent construction of Thameslink 2000 and Crossrail at Farringdon, should this occur. This later work was documented in the Thameslink 2000 ES Addendum 2005. ES2004 and the 2005 Addendum are part of the documentation informing the Thameslink 2000 public inquiry, which re-opened on 6 September 2005.

Departmental Websites

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what websites come under his Department's responsibility; and what the (a) cost and (b) number of visitors to those sites was in the last year for which figures are available.

Karen Buck: The following websites are the Department's responsibility and include the Department for Transport (DfT) website, associated DfT websites as well as DfT Agency sites. Figures are provided for the financial year 2004–05.
	The 'Number of visitors' information provided refers to the number of unique users who have visited each site. This information is not provided for all sites where statistics software used does not provide such data and is listed as 'Not Available' where relevant.
	
		
			  Website Cost for 2004–05 (£)  Unique users 
		
		
			 www.dft.gov.uk 290,035 1,302,705 
			 www.cfit.gov.uk 5,608.87 n/a 
			 www.dptac.gov.uk 14,137 n/a 
			 www.highwaycode.gov.uk 4,143.35 n/a 
			 www.utmc.gov.uk 2,340 n/a 
			 www.webtag.org.uk 8,546.75 n/a 
			 www.transportdirect.info 15.5 million 712,058 
			 www.cyclesense.net 0 n/a 
			 www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk 14,237 n/a 
			 www.hedgehogs.gov.uk 0 n/a 
			 www.databases.dft.gov.uk/primary 563 n/a 
			 www.databases.dft.gov.uk/secondary 563 n/a 
			 www.thinkseatbelts.com 1,100 n/a 
			 www.databases.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety 0 n/a 
			 www.databases.dft.gov.uk/schools 0 n/a 
			 www.drugdrive.com 1,050 n/a 
			 www.cyclesmart.org 33,200 n/a 
			 www.mcga.gov.uk 16,717 n/a 
			 www.highways.gov.uk 726,900 804,181 
			 Highways Agency research compendium site 75,478 82,275 
			 Highways Traffic Map 227,176 193,201 
			 www.dvlaregistrations.co.uk 45,566.32 n/a 
			 www.dvla.gov.uk 27,930 4,282,548 
			 www.dvlaonline.gov.uk 62,000 1703 
			 www.dvla.gov.uk/vehiclelicence 2,493,061.64 n/a 
			 www.homezoneschallenge.com 2768.16 n/a 
			 www.dsa.gov.uk 50,000 5,324,743 
			 www.passplus.org.uk 2,000 238,443 
			 www.arrive-alive.info 2,000 16,880 
			 www.ask-what-if.com 2,000 25,579 
			 www.theory-tests.co.uk 5,000 1,240,148 
			 www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk 4,089 n/a 
			 www.vca.gov.uk 4,589 n/a 
			 www.vosa.gov.uk n/a 112,211 
		
	
	n/a = not available.

Rail Franchises

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the timescale is for key decisions relating to the new South West Trains franchise in 2007.

Derek Twigg: An Official Journal of the European Union Notice was issued on 22 September inviting Expressions of Interest to run the South Western franchise; responses are due back on 11 November. Those short-listed will be announced in January 2006, and an invitation to tender issued in March 2006. Bids must be returned during June 2006, and it is expected to announce the successful bidder in autumn 2006.

TREASURY

Charities

Michael Penning: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised in taxation on charities in 2004.

Ivan Lewis: Charities are exempt from tax on most income and gains provided they are applied charitably. Charities are not normally exempt from tax on income and gains derived from non-charitable activities. Tax on income and gains raised from charities in 2004–05 with respect to non-charitable activities, or funds applied to non-charitable purposes amounted to less than £10 million.
	HM Revenue and Customs do not collect data on VAT from individual goods and services. A figure for revenue from VAT on charities is therefore unavailable.

Company Tax Reliefs and Subsidies

Michael Meacher: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of tax reliefs and public subsidies in grants or loans received by each of the top 20 UK companies has been in each year since 1990; and if he will list the main tax reliefs and public subsidies concerned.

John Healey: Disclosure of the tax reliefs and support for particular companies would breach taxpayer confidentiality.
	However, details of the costs of the main tax reliefs can be found in table A3.1 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2005, and details on business support can be found in departmental reports.

Crossrail

Sarah Teather: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effects of Crossrail on London's economy; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: I have been asked to reply.
	Information on the economic assessment of Crossrail is available on the Crossrail website at www.crossrail.co.uk

Debt Relief

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  to how many countries he proposes to extend the Government's debt relief programme;
	(2)  to which poor countries the Government's current debt relief programmes apply; and how they are structured.

Andrew George: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral (i) aid and (ii) debt relief for developing countries he has committed from UK Treasury resources since the G8 summit at Gleneagles.

Ivan Lewis: The annual departmental report for the Department for International Development (DFID) sets out DFID's current spending plans and reports on outturn expenditure for previous years. Each departmental report's analysis of DFID expenditure covers: bilateral aid expenditure, including all forms of direct assistance; expenditure through multilateral institutions; DFID expenditure in support of the HIPC initiative and the multilateral debt relief initiative, for those years in which these initiatives have been in place.
	Reports outline DFID's expenditure plans and do not distinguish between pledges and commitments.
	DFID's departmental report was first published in 1999. The Secretary of State for International Development has arranged for copies of the report from 1999 to 2005 to be placed in the Library of the House. Information on DFID expenditure is to be found in: Annex 1, Table 5 of the 1999 and 2000 reports; Annex 2, Table 10 of the 2001 report; Annex 1, Table 4 of the 2002 to 2005 reports.
	In the 2004 Spending Review, the Chancellor announced that DFID's budget would increase from £4.5 billion in 2005–06 to £5.0 billion in 2006–07 and to £5.3 billion in 2007–08. The Department has set out its expenditure plans within this framework in its departmental report 2005. For ease of reference, the Department's total planned expenditure on bilateral aid programmes and through multilateral institutions for the period 2005–06 to 2007–08 is set out in Table 1. This excludes the UK's share of the EC aid budget which is set against DFID's budget. It also excludes most UK expenditure on debt relief, although DFID's contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund is included. This is because most of our internationally agreed debt relief is provided on debts held by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). Debt relief that goes beyond what is required by international agreements is funded by DFID. DFID's bilateral and multilateral aid expenditure plans were not changed in light of the G8 Finance Ministers summit in June.
	
		Table 1 -- £ million
		
			  Plans Bilateral expenditure  Multilateral 
		
		
			 2005–06 2,062 1,085 
			 2006–07 2,111 1,282 
			 2007–08 2,261 1,306 
		
	
	Debt relief
	The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative provides qualifying countries with relief and cancellation of debts owed to multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, as well as debts to bilateral governments. To date, debt relief worth $56 billion (in nominal terms) has been agreed for 28 countries, other countries are likely to enter the Initiative next year. The World Bank and IMF estimate that the HIPC Initiative has been freeing up around $1 billion a year from debt service payments for the 28 countries that have qualified under HIPC. The UK is the second largest contributor to the HIPC Trust Fund, which assists multilateral institutions with the costs of providing debt relief under HIPC. We pledged a total of $436 million to the Trust Fund ($221 million, plus $88 million of the European Commission contribution in 2000, and a further $95 million, plus $32 million of an EC contribution in 2002). In addition, the UK also contributed US$43 million to assist the International Monetary Fund with its costs of delivering HIPC debt relief. 18 countries have qualified for Completion Point of HIPC (Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guyana, Ghana, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia). Another 10 have reached Decision Point (Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Sierra Leone and Sao Tome and Principe). A further 10 are eligible for debt relief under HIPC once they meet Decision Point criterion (Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, Lao Pdr, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Togo). A final list of countries eligible for HIPC under the Sunset Clause will be released early next year.
	On bilateral debt, the Government have cancelled the aid debts owed by the poorest countries (not just the HIPCs), worth some £1.2 billion since 1978.
	In 1999, the Government agreed to cancel 100 per cent. of bilateral debts owed by HIPC countries to the UK when these countries completed the HIPC process. Since most aid debts had already been cancelled, these were export credit guarantee debts. For HIPC countries, total UK debt written off so far (to August 2005) is around £1.2 billion; this includes traditional Paris Club debt treatment, as well as the application of our 100 per cent. bilateral cancellation policy under the HIPC Initiative.
	In 2000, the Government agreed that they would not benefit from debt service payments from HIPC countries, and that any payments received from December 2000 would be held in trust and reimbursed to the country once it had successfully completed the HIPC process.
	In 2004, recognising the poorest countries were still having to curtail spending on poverty reduction in order to service their debts, the Government proposed greater relief on debts owed by countries to international institutions. The Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) began on 1 January 2005, under which we committed to pay our share, 10 per cent., of qualifying countries' debt service payments to International Development Association of the World Bank and the African Development Fund. We expect to spend about $46 million on qualifying countries this financial year.
	In June 2005, the Finance Ministers of the G8 countries endorsed a proposal to cancel all the remaining debts of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank and African Development Fund (AfDF). Details are still under discussion, but when agreed by the international community, the deal will be worth approximately $55 billion in debt stock cancellations for the current 38 HIPCs. Donors will provide approximately $49 billion of this over the next 40 years to IDA and AfDF to compensate for foregone reflows. The cost of debt relief at the IMF ($6.1 billion) will be financed from internal resources, although the donors have committed to provide additional resources if needed to ensure that the IMF's ability to assist poor countries is not diminished. It is estimated that the annual resources freed up by the proposal will be around $1 billion in 2007, rising to around $1.7 billion in 2010—resources that will enable countries to tackle poverty.
	The G8's proposal, when agreed, will supersede the MDRI for HIPCs. The precise costs to the UK are yet to finalised, but are likely to be in the region of $6 billion over the whole period of implementation. In addition, the UK will continue to meet its obligations under the MDRI to qualifying non-HIPC countries. This will cover IDA-only, low-income countries with a sufficiently robust public financial management system, the current proxy for this being budget support from the World Bank through a Poverty Reduction Support Credit. The value of this assistance will be $184 million until 2015 for currently eligible countries (Armenia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam), potentially rising to $463 million until 2015 for all potentially eligible countries.
	G8 Finance Ministers also reiterated in June their continued commitment to the full implementation and financing of HIPC. The UK already meets and exceeds its commitments under HIPC. Our commitment to HIPC and other bilateral debt cancellation policies continue and were not altered by the G8 Finance Ministers' decisions in June.

Debt Relief

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will be taking to ensure the implementation of the debt relief agreement concluded at the G8 Gleneagles meeting for the completion point heavily indebted poor countries without further conditionality demands from international financial institutions.

Ivan Lewis: The UK welcomes the agreement at the recent annual meetings of the World Bank and IMF to the multilateral debt relief proposal. Up to 18 countries that have reached completion point of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative could benefit immediately, with a further 10 countries benefiting over the next year or two, and an additional 10 countries as they reach completion point. The proposal covers debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank and the African Development Fund (AfDF).
	All countries receiving relief will have demonstrated their commitment to poverty reduction through completion of the HIPC process. Debt cancellation will be irrevocable—there will be no ongoing conditionality on support. Allocation of additional resources from IDA and the AfDF through their performance based allocation systems will maintain a performance incentive.

Government Debt

Sarah Teather: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of UK Government debt was raised in sterling; what currencies the remainder was raised in; how much was raised in each; how the exchange risk is managed; and if he will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis: The following table sets out the gross nominal liabilities of the national loans fund (formerly known as the national debt) broken down by currency as at 25 August 2005.
	
		Gross nominal liabilities of the national loans fund
		
			 Currency Amount (£ billion) Percentage of total 
		
		
			 Sterling 449.11 99.6 
			 Canadian dollar 0.03 0.0 
			 US dollar 1.79 0.4 
			 Euro 0.001 0.0 
			 Total (1)450.93 100.0 
		
	
	(1) Figures may not sum due to rounding
	UK Government foreign currency borrowing accounts for 0.4 percent. of total borrowing. The majority of this foreign currency borrowing relates to a US dollar bond issued in June 2003. All the money raised from UK Government foreign currency borrowing is used to finance foreign currency assets held in the exchange equalisation account (EEA). Exchange rate risk is managed by either purchasing assets of the same currency as the liabilities with which they are associated or by using foreign currency swaps to match the currency exposure of the assets with the liabilities.

Non-oil Gross Value

Philip Hammond: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the estimates for each quarter since Q1 1997 of (a) actual non-oil gross value added and (b) non-oil gross value added if it had grown according to trend, that underpin chart 4.1 of the Treasury publication, Evidence on the UK Economic Cycle.

John Healey: The trend rate of growth assumed in the 'post-30 June revisions' line of chart 4.1 of the Treasury publication 'Evidence on the UK economic cycle' is the average rate of growth of non-oil gross value added between the estimated on-trend points in 1997H1 and 2001Q3, and the assumed rate of 2¾ percent. a year thereafter. The requested information is as follows:
	
		
			   Actual non-oil GVA Trend non-oil GVA as assumed in chart 4.1 
		
		
			 1997   
			 Q1 195079 195126 
			 Q2 196273 196434 
			 Q3 197714 197957 
			 Q4 199984 199493 
			   
			 1998   
			 Q1 201500 201040 
			 Q2 202783 202600 
			 Q3 204932 204172 
			 Q4 206770 205756 
			 1999   
			 Q1 207704 207352 
			 Q2 208916 208960 
			 Q3 210816 210581 
			 Q4 213520 212215 
			   
			 2000   
			 Q1 216553 213861 
			 Q2 218297 215520 
			 Q3 220323 217192 
			 Q4 221337 218877 
			   
			 2001   
			 Q1 222860 220575 
			 Q2 223471 222286 
			 Q3 224010 224010 
			 Q4 225004 225534 
			   
			 2002   
			 Q1 226058 227069 
			 Q2 226797 228615 
			 Q3 228729 230170 
			 Q4 229405 231737 
			   
			 2003   
			 Q1 231004 233314 
			 Q2 232316 234901 
			 Q3 234758 236500 
			 Q4 237208 238109 
			   
			 2004   
			 Q1 239413 239730 
			 Q2 241085 241361 
			 Q3 242175 243004 
			 Q4 243574 244657 
			   
			 2005   
			 Q1 244539 246322

Taxation

Andrew Love: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross salary was paid in tax for each decile of income in each year from 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: The information for taxpaying employees is in the table. Information for earlier years is not readily available.
	
		Percentage of gross salary paid in tax by each decile
		
			 Deciles ranked by salary 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 
		
		
			 Bottom 6 5 5 5 6 
			 2nd 8 6 6 6 6 
			 3rd 11 10 10 10 10 
			 4th 13 12 12 12 12 
			 5th 15 14 13 13 13 
			 6th 16 15 15 15 15 
			 7th 17 16 16 16 16 
			 8th 17 17 16 16 16 
			 9th 18 18 18 18 18 
			 Top 29 28 28 28 28 
			 Average 19 19 19 19 18 
		
	
	Estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI) and 2002–03 is the latest survey year.
	The survey is based on information held by the HM Revenue and Customs tax offices on persons who are liable to UK tax.
	These estimates exclude information on working families' tax credits (now replaced by working tax credit) and employees with earnings below the tax threshold—both of which enhance the progressivity of the tax system.

Tsunami Appeal

Theresa Villiers: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax the Government have received from the tsunami appeal (a) in total and (b) broken down by individual taxes.

Ivan Lewis: Charities do not pay tax on donations they receive, but many fund-raising events for the tsunami appeal were subject to VAT.
	In January the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Treasury would make a special contribution to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) to match the VAT collected on fund-raising events and sales. In August, having collected information on the amount of VAT raised on tsunami related fundraising events, the Treasury made a donation of £2 million to the DEC. This was in addition to the minimum of £15 million the DEC estimates has been given in tax relief on public contributions to the appeal made through the Gift Aid scheme.
	Gift Aid, enables charities to reclaim the basic rate tax on donations they receive, adding 28p to every £1 donated. The donor must give the charity a declaration that they want their donation to be subject to Gift Aid.

DEFENCE

FRES

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Future Rapid Effects System to complete its assessment phase; and what he expects the final costs of this phase to be.

Adam Ingram: The initial assessment phase is scheduled to complete in November 2006 at an estimated cost of £113 million. As with all projects, however, completion of the assessment phase will be determined by project maturity.

Military Vehicles

Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) FV430 series, (b) Scimitar, (c) Sultan, (d) Samson, (e) Samaritan, (f) Spartan, (g) Striker, (h) Sabre, (i) Scorpion and (j) Saxon vehicles are in working order.

Adam Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
	Substantive answer from Adam Ingram to Ann Winterton:
	I undertook to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question of 13 July 2005, Official Report, Column 1081W, about the number of Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) CVR(T) vehicles in working order.
	As I am sure you will appreciate the number of CVR(T) vehicles available at any one time is a constant variable and depends upon a wide range of factors such as breakdowns, battle damage, availability of labour, spare parts and programmed repair activity. The table provides details about the CVR(T) fleet as at 29 April 2005. The Scorpion and Sabre variants have not been shown as these vehicles were withdrawn from service in 1995 and 2004 respectively.
	
		Details of CVR(T) numbers as at 29 April 2005
		
			  Total fleet (equals columns 2+5+6) Quantity in land forces (equals columns 3+4) Quantity in working order Quantity yin first or second line Quantity in fourth line maintenance Other 
			 Vehicle (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 
		
		
			 FV430 series 1,492 1,154 775 379 34 304 
			 Scimitar 328 240 163 77 27 61 
			 Spartan 478 320 213 107 25 133 
			 Samaritan 50 41 26 15 1 8 
			 Sultan 205 153 99 54 7 45 
			 Samson 50 38 26 12 2 10 
			 Striker 48 31 12 19 0 17 
			 Sturgeon 32 0 0 0 8 24 
			 Salamander 35 0 0 0 8 27 
			 SAXON 622 312 169 143 40 270 
		
	
	It might be useful if I explain in a little more detail how each of the column headings has been defined for the purpose of answering your question:
	Column 1—fleet size is the total number of vehicles held by the MOD.
	Column 2—the quantity of vehicles held by our Land Forces is the number of vehicles that were available to LAND Command units on the date given. This equates to those in working order and those in first and second line maintenance (see below).
	Column 4—this shows the number of those vehicles held locally by LAND Command units undergoing maintenance.
	Column 5—is the number of vehicles in 4th line maintenance (see below).
	Column 6—this figure refers to vehicles that are currently being used for training, trials and testing with the Design Authority, in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Cyprus, with RAF Units or undergoing Bowman conversion. Unfortunately we are unable to provide more specific details for this group of vehicles as the information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
	By way of background, you may wish to be aware that first and second line maintenance for our vehicle fleet is provided by the local Light Aid Detachment (LAD) and REME Battalions or by the local army base repair organisation (ABRO) district workshop. First line maintenance can range from simple tasks such as replacing a blown bulb to changing an entire engine. Tasks conducted at second line repair are generally more complicated and time consuming and may require specialist tools and facilities. Fourth line repair is provided by ABRO and is generally programmed in depth repair (base overhaul) or structural repairs such as repairs to battle damaged vehicles. Fourth line repair is the most complex and in depth repair often involving stripping the vehicle of its components and paint removal before the whole vehicle is repaired and reassembled.
	It is worth noting at this point that all our vehicle fleets require regular maintenance and for this reason it is MOD policy not to have all of its vehicles available to the front line when not on operations. MOD maintenance and support policies are designed to ensure we maintain our Forces at the appropriate readiness state. Our maintenance programmes are sufficiently flexible to ensure that we can meet increased demands for vehicles from Front Line Commands to meet operational need.
	I am placing a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

Retained Naval Equipment

Michael Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value of the Royal Navy equipment retained by the Iranian Government following the incident in the Shatt-al-Arab waterway in June 2004; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 21 February 2005, Official Report, column 118W.

Ships (Fitted Equipment)

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which of the 65 RN and RFA vessels listed in the letter from the Minister of State (Armed Forces) dated 4 July 2005 as having donated ships' fitted equipment between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2005 are still without the donated equipment; and what the main items of equipment donated were in each case.

Adam Ingram: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 March 2005, Official Report, column 414W, to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
	Ships that donate equipment are either in upkeep or are dropping down the readiness state in preparation for going into upkeep or disposal.
	During upkeep, any shortfalls in equipment are considered as part of the overall upkeep package.
	To determine and track the aspects of the upkeep work package that are directly attributable to the ship being a donor of fitted equipment could be done only at disproportionate cost.

Whittington Barracks

Brian Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Whittington Barracks.

Don Touhig: I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) on 1 November 2004, Official Report, column 110W and 4 April 2005, Official Report, column 1104W. The study into the future of Army Training Regiment Lichfield and Whittington Barracks will not now be concluded until February 2006.

WALES

Wales (Government)

Peter Law: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he intends to implement Paragraph 3.12 of the White Paper, Better Government for Wales (Cm 6582), in respect of any bill he introduces in the current session of Parliament.

Yvette Cooper: I have been asked to reply.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be introducing a bill to defer council tax revaluation. This bill will apply only to England.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Building Regulations

David Chaytor: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of respondents who expressed a view endorsed the proposals made in Question 21 of the consultation exercise conducted in 2004 under Part L of the Building Regulations.

Yvette Cooper: The response to Question 21 is set out as follows. The majority of respondents were from the construction industry. There were very few respondents from members of the public.
	
		
			  Q21: Do you consider the overall level of improvements proposed for existing buildings to be reasonable? (Please comment on factors affecting your view.) 
		
		
			 Too strict 41 
			 About Right 116 
			 Too lenient 62 
			 No view 60

Co-operative Dwellings

Andrew Love: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes have been built as co-operative dwellings in (a) England and (b) Greater London in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: Information is available only on Co-operative Housing Associations registered with the Housing Corporation and self build housing projects that receive funding from the Housing Corporation. The numbers of completions (including new build, acquisitions and refurbishments) by registered Co-operative Housing Associations are as tabled. The numbers of self build completions with Housing Corporation funding are shown in the second table.
	
		Completions by registered Co-operative Housing Associations (using Approved Development Programme funding)
		
			  (a) England (b) London 
		
		
			 1998 159 44 
			 1999 60 22 
			 2000 24 7 
			 2001 100 66 
			 2002 37 21 
			 2003 4 1 
			 2004 5 0 
			 Total 389 161 
		
	
	
		Completions on Self-Build housing projects (using Approved Development Programme funding)
		
			  (b) London (a) England 
		
		
			 1997–98 0 0 
			 1998–99 0 0 
			 1999–2000 8 8 
			 2000–01 3 3 
			 2001–02 22 0 
			 2002–03 16 16 
			 2003–04 8 8 
			 2004–05 10 10 
			 Total 67 45

Decent Homes Standard

Claire Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the likelihood of all council housing meeting the Decent Homes Standard by 2010.

Yvette Cooper: Projections indicate that work completed and plans in place will take us 90 per cent. of the way towards our target to ensure that all social homes are made decent by 2010. We are now focusing our efforts on delivering decent homes for the remaining 10 per cent.

Empty Properties

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure empty homes are returned to use; and if he will make a statement;

Eric Forth: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's policies are with regard to bringing into use vacant domestic properties in England.

Yvette Cooper: The number of empty homes in England has fallen by 10 percent. since 1997, although the number remaining empty for longer than six months has remained roughly constant. We will shortly provide local authorities with new powers under the Housing Act 2004 to require owners to bring such properties back into use.
	We are currently consulting on the details of the secondary legislation which will be introduced next year. Once in force, local authorities will be able—as part of their plans to tackle housing shortages locally—to serve Empty Dwelling Management Orders on owners of empty properties, enabling homes to be improved and let to those needing rented accommodation. Properties will revert to the owners after seven years, or earlier if an authority is satisfied that the owner intends to sell or let the property himself.
	In some areas it may be more appropriate to demolish empty properties rather than attempt to bring them back into use, in which case local authorities can be expected to use their existing compulsory purchase powers. This is more likely to be the case in areas of low demand, but even in the nine market pathfinder areas the number of properties to be renovated is likely to exceed the number likely to be demolished by a factor of two.
	We will also continue to support the work of the Empty Homes Agency in identifying and publicising best practice on bringing empty homes back into use.

Empty Properties

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty homes there have been in (a) the parliamentary constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire and (b) the county of Bedfordshire in each year since 1997.

Yvette Cooper: Information on empty homes is available at local authority and not parliamentary constituency level. The numbers of empty homes in Bedfordshire by district by each year since 1997 are shown in the following table. These figures come from a combination of data supplied by local authorities on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's housing strategy statistical appendix return and the Housing Corporation's regulatory and statistical return. Local authorities will shortly be able to use new powers to bring empty homes back into use.
	
		Total vacant dwellings at 1 April by district in Bedfordshire
		
			 Local authority name 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 Bedford 2,724 2,474 2,553 2,376 1,782 1,786 2,022 1,940 
			 Mid Bedfordshire 2,253 2,191 1,835 935 1,071 593 1,212 1,224 
			 South Bedfordshire 1,000 983 951 909 962 1,324 1,481 1,084 
			 Bedfordshire 5,977 5,648 5,339 4,220 3,815 3,703 4,715 4,248

Energy Efficiency

Tim Boswell: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve (a) enforcement of and (b) compliance with the building regulations in relation to energy efficiency.

Yvette Cooper: Amendments to the Building Regulations and new guidance from April 2006 will help builders comply with the Regulations and make it easier for local authorities to enforce compliance, while substantially increasing standards. Measures include:
	a single route for demonstrating compliance
	a requirement for builders to provide more information
	mandatory pressure testing
	improved technical guidance and checklists
	a substantial dissemination and training campaign
	authorised competent person self-certification schemes to reduce the burden on building control bodies and builders.

Equal Pay

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of the top 5 per cent. highest paid salaried employees within his Department are women.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Currently 39 per cent. of members of the senior civil service in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Central) are women. Of which, 1.96 per cent. of the total female population are within the top 5 per cent. highest paid salaried employees within ODPM. However, in the top 10 per cent. of the SCS, 3.9 per cent. of the total female SCS population are high earners; and in the top 15 per cent. of the SCS, 13.7 per cent. fall into this category.

Equal Pay

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of the top 5 per cent. highest paid salaried employees within his Department are from black and minority ethnic communities.

Jim Fitzpatrick: There are currently 130 members of the senior civil service in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Central). Of which, 1.96 per cent. are from black and minority ethnic communities and within the top 5 per cent. highest paid salaried employees within ODPM.

Fly-posting

Mark Tami: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many prosecutions for fly-posting on motorway bridges in England and Wales there have been in each of the last five years.

Yvette Cooper: This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Green Belt

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the locations of each development on Green Belt land for which he or his predecessors have (a) given planning permission and (b) refused planning permission, since 1 May 1997.

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister or his predecessors has granted planning permission to 143 called-in applications or appeals involving development on Green Belt land between 1 April 1999 and 30 September 2005. Of these, 73 were in accordance with local planning authorities' resolutions to grant permission prior to the call-in of the application by the First Secretary of State. He has also refused planning permission for a further 279 called-in applications or appeals for development on Green Belt land in the same period. Of these, 112 were in accordance with local authorities' decisions to refuse permission. Tables setting out the locations, and dates of the relevant decisions, have been made available in the Libraries of the House.
	Comprehensive information is not available for the period from May 1997 to April 1999.

Home Ownership

Edward Davey: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of (a) London and (b) Kingston and Surbiton residents (i) rent and (ii) own their dwellings.

Yvette Cooper: According to the 2001 census: (a) 43 per cent. of households in London were renting and 57 per cent. of households were owner occupiers; while (b) in the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames (which includes Surbiton), 29 per cent. of households were renting and 71 per cent. of households were owner occupiers.
	Based on more recent (2005) data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), it is estimated that, in spring 2005, 42 per cent. of London households were renting and 58 per cent. of households were owner occupiers. Recent figures for Kingston upon Thames are not available from the LFS as the survey sample is too small to provide reliable estimates at local authority level.

Homelessness

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people in the parliamentary constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire have been classified as homeless in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: Information about local authorities' actions under homelessness legislation is collected in respect of households, rather than persons, and in terms of local housing authority district. As Mid-Bedfordshire parliamentary constituency covers parts of Bedford, Mid-Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire district councils, summary information has been presented for all three authorities.
	The number of households accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need for each year since 1997–98, and the number of households in temporary accommodation arranged by local authorities under homelessness legislation as at 31 March of each year since 1997, is tabled as follows.
	The duty owed to a person accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need is to secure suitable accommodation. If a settled home is not immediately available, the authority may secure temporary accommodation until a settled home becomes available. As an alternative to the provision of temporary accommodation some authorities arrange for households to remain in their current accommodation (homeless at home), until a settled solution becomes available.
	Information is also collected on the number of people who sleep rough—that is, those who are literally roofless on a single night—and these are also presented in the table.
	
		
			  Total 
			  Number of households accepted 1, 2 Households in temporary accommodation 2, 3 at end of year (31 March) Rough sleepers (5) (Persons) 
		
		
			 Bedford District Council 
			 1997–98 241 33 — 
			 1998–99 283 31 11 
			 1999–2000 365 37 11 
			 2000–01 371 93 7 
			 2001–02 426 51 0 
			 2002–03 485 62 11 
			 2003–04 367 49 3 
			 2004–05 302 47 3 
			 
			 Mid Bedfordshire District Council 
			 1997–98 82 16 — 
			 1998–99 91 18 1 
			 1999–2000 42 12 1 
			 2000–01 56 19 1 
			 2001–02 109 27 0 
			 2002–03 135 75 0 
			 2003–04 125 37 0 
			 2004–05 144 46 0 
			 
			 South Bedfordshire District Council 
			 1997–98 211 150 — 
			 1998–99 282 162 0 
			 1999–2000 245 321 0 
			 2000–01 356 360 0 
			 2001–02 284 250 0 
			 2002–03 312 267 0 
			 2003–04 322 377 0 
			 2004–05 297 213 0 
		
	
	(2) Households eligible under homelessness legislation and found to be unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category.
	(3) ODPM P1E homelessness returns (quarterly).
	(4) Households in accommodation either pending a decision on their homelessness application or awaiting re-allocation of a settled home following acceptance. Excludes those households designated as "homeless at home" that have remained in their existing accommodation and have the same rights to suitable alternative accommodation as those in accommodation arranged by the authority.
	(5) ODPM Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (annual). Data not collected prior to 1998.
	Note:
	Figures provided are for the financial year (i.e. April-March).

Homelessness

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent estimate he has made of the number of rough sleepers in the County of Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: The most recent estimate, as at June 2005, showed there were 459 people sleeping rough in England on any single night. The annual rough sleeping estimate shows the result of street counts for every area where such a count has taken place and (where no counts have taken place) any estimate of more than 10 rough sleepers provided by local authorities in their 2005 Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) return to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Local authorities in Bedfordshire had not conducted recent street counts. Bedfordshire local authorities (Bedford, Mid-Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire) estimated rough sleeper levels of between 0–10.

Housing Act

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the timetable is for the implementation of the Housing Act 2004.

Yvette Cooper: I refer to the hon. Member to the written statement made on 10 October 2005, Official Report, column 6–7WS, in relation to implementation of Parts 1–4, 6 & 7 of the Housing Act 2004.
	We plan to introduce mandatory home information packs under Part 5 of the Act in early 2007. However, many home buyers and sellers will not have to wait to benefit from home information packs since an increasing number of estate agents, surveyors and conveyancers are operating pack schemes on a voluntary basis.
	The provisions within Part 6 of the Act, to commence s.225 (covering the preparation of accommodation needs assessment and accommodation strategies for 'Gypsies and Travellers') are planned to be commenced in spring 2006, following consultation on the definition of 'Gypsies and Travellers' for the purposes of the Act.

Minerals Planning Guidance

Clive Betts: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department last issued supplementary advice on the correct application of Minerals Planning Guidance 3 to (a) minerals planning authorities and (b) the Government Offices of the Regions; what mechanisms are available to his Department to issue supplementary advice to minerals planning authorities on the correct application of Minerals Planning Guidance 3 when considering new applications for surface coal mines; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: It is not appropriate to issue supplementary public advice that would elaborate, gloss or qualify planning policy guidance documents to give a "correct" application. There can only be one statement of policy in force at any one time, and if this is to be changed a new text must be consulted on in the usual way. Minerals Planning Guidance 3 (MPG3) already provides sufficiently clear advice to mineral planning authorities and the coal industry in England on the tests to be applied when considering coal extraction proposals.
	Planning applications for coal mining have to meet alternative tests. They must either be environmentally acceptable or, even if not, provide offsetting local or community benefits. The present policy clearly sets these considerations out as alternative tests, not cumulative ones. Paragraph 8 (i) and (ii) of MPG3 is clear in that respect. Staff in our Planning Directorate drew this to the attention of ODPM decision officers, planning Inspectors and Government Office staff in October 2004. Officials in the ODPM and the relevant Government Offices, will continue to examine and comment on draft regional and local planning documents dealing with coal mining development for conformity with national policy on this and other matters dealt with in MPG3, and will if necessary raise matters of non-conformity at the public examinations of plans.

Minerals Planning Guidance

Clive Betts: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the presumption against surface coal mining contained in Minerals Planning Guidance 3 only applies unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable according to the criteria set out in MPG3 or community benefits can be provided which offset environmental impact; and whether these are (a) alternative and (b) cumulative tests.

Yvette Cooper: There is a presumption against open-cast mining unless the proposal is environmentally acceptable or can be made so through the use of planning conditions, but even if this is not possible community benefits that offset the likely impacts can remove that presumption and allow a successful application. The drafting of paragraph 8 (i) and (ii) of MPG3 makes it clear that these are alternative tests, not cumulative ones.

Regional Assemblies

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 18 July 2005, Official Report, columns 1447–48W, on regional chambers, if he will place in the Library copies of the annual audited accounts of each regional chamber for the most recent available year.

Yvette Cooper: Copies of the latest audited regional assembly accounts have been placed in the Library of the House.

Sustainable Communities Strategy

Philip Hollobone: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his role in ensuring delivery of the Government's sustainable communities strategy with respect to the work of the local delivery vehicles North Northants together and the West Northamptonshire urban district council.

Yvette Cooper: The local delivery vehicles North Northants together and the West Northamptonshire development corporation have been established to bring together local partners in these key growth area locations to help achieve our shared goal of more sustainable growth in these areas, maximising the potential of public and private investment to that end. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be providing funding and sponsorship support to enable them to bring forward projects which meet high standards of sustainability—helping to create well-designed, vibrant communities, where people want to live and work, with quality public services and infrastructure.

Telecommunications Masts

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many (a) telecommunication base stations and (b) mobile phone masts have been located in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire and (ii) the County of Bedfordshire in each year since 1997.

Yvette Cooper: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	However, during September and October every year the mobile network operators write to every local authority with details of their network rollout for the year ahead.
	When they write to the local authority they also provide details of their existing sites within the local authority area. The hon. Member may want to contact the network operators for copies of their plans.

Travellers

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 8 June 2005, Official Report, column 564W, on Travellers, if he will place in the Library copies of each of the written reports of the appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate or the First Secretary of State for applications which were granted on appeal.

Yvette Cooper: Copies of those appeal decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate or my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister the First Secretary of State, which were listed in the answer given on 8 June 2005, Official Report, column 564W, have been placed in the Libraries of the House. One decision may cover a number of appeals on a single site.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Antisocial Behaviour

Susan Kramer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003.

Paul Goggins: We have no plans to review section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act. Following the High Court ruling that the police have no power to use reasonable force when taking a child home under section 30(6) of the Act, we are applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Departmental Stationery

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of (a) paper for printed publications and (b) copying paper used by the Department in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained.

Charles Clarke: The percentages of (a) paper for printed publications and (b) copying paper used by the department in 2003–04 and 2004–05 from recycled sources are shown in the following table.
	The figure for paper for printed publications only covers the period 1 November 2004 to 31 March 2005 because until then the department did not buy their paper directly.
	The post-consumer waste content of the copying paper was unknown to the supplier as it varies over time according to demand and availability of supply. The recycled content of the paper is described as unspecified.
	
		Percentage from recycled sources
		
			  2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 (a) Paper for printed publications Unknown 2 
			 (b) Copying paper 65.24 83

Departmental Stationery

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Department's main suppliers of (a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports; and what (i) the name of each paper used and (ii) the recycled and post-consumer recycled content of each paper is.

Charles Clarke: The contract to supply paper and paper products to the Home Department is held by the company Office Depot. In addition to the aforementioned contract the prison service also hold a contract with James MacNaughton Paper Group Ltd. to supply paper and paper products to Prison Service Enterprise and Supply Services Internal Industries.
	Office Depot provide a wide range of stationery products to the Home Office and to provide details of every paper and paper product supplied would incur disproportionate costs.
	I am however able to provide details of the top 10 paper and paper products purchased from Office Depot by brand name and where available the recycled and post consumer recycled content of each paper in the categories requested.
	Details of the top 10 paper and paper products purchased from James MacNaughton Paper Group Ltd. by brand name and where available the recycled and post consumer recycled content for copier paper is in the following table.
	
		(a) Copier paper
		
			  Percentage 
			 Name of paper used Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Niceday Environmental 3500 Recycled Paper A4 80gsm 80–89 (6)—; 0 
			 Easyday 3000 Laser Copier A4 80gWH 0 0 0 
			 Easyday 4000 A4 80 g HE 0 0 0 
			 Niceday 6000 A4 80 GSM White 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Tinted Paper Pale Yellow 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Pale Blue 0 0 0 
			 Envt 3500 Recycled Paper A3 80gsm 80–89 (6)—; 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Pale Green 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Pale Pink 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Mid Green 0 0 0 
		
	
	(6) Various pcw content depending on availability
	
		(b) Stationery
		
			  Percentage 
			 Stationery item Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 N2 Divider A4 10Pt Col Tabs 0 0 0 
			 N2 Divider A4 5Part Colour Tab 0 0 0 
			 Easyday Desk Calendar A4 15 Month 2006 0 0 0 
			 Envt Divider A4 10Pt Col Tabs 100 0 100 
			 Easyday Notes 3x3 Yellow 0 0 0 
			 N2 Divider 10Pt Extra Wide 0 0 0 
			 N2 Easyday Year Planner Unmounted 2006 0 0 0 
			 N2 Manuscript Book A4 96LF 0 0 0 
			 Easyday Diary A5 one W/T/V Black 2006 0 0 0 
			 Envt Divider A4 5PT Colour Tab 100 0 100 
		
	
	
		(c) Envelopes
		
			  Percentage 
			 Type of envelope Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Envt Bubble Postal Bag 020788 0 0 0 
			 Easyday Env 114x1629088 White 0 0 0 
			 Envt Envelope 324x229 90 Self seal Buff 100 85 0 
			 Easyday 0 0 0 
			 Envelope 110x2209088 White — — — 
			 Mail Lite 270x360 Gold Bubble Lined 0 0 0 
			 Environmental Envelope 229x1629088 BF 100 85 0 
			 Easyday Env 324x22911588 Man 100 85 0 
			 Environmental Envelope 324x229 90g Self Seal Buff 100 85 0 
			 Environmental Envelope C4 324x229mm Manilla Gummed 90g 100 85 0 
			 Environmental Envelope C5 229x1 62mm Manila Gummed 90g 100 85 0 
		
	
	
		(d) Paper for reports
		
			  Percentage 
			 Name of paper used Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Niceday Duplicator Blue A4 80gsm 0 10 90 
			 Niceday Duplicator Yellow A4 80gsm 0 10 90 
			 Niceday 11x14.5 1PT70g Pain Laser 0 0 0 
			 HP Premium n/a n/a n/a 
			 Plus Photo Paper A4 C6832A — — — 
			 Niceday 11x9.5 1PT70g Plain Micro Vertical Perforations 0 0 0 
			 Niceday 11x14.5 1PT60g Plain 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Duplicator A4 80g White 0 10 90 
			 Nicely 11x9.5 1PT60g Plain Micro Vertical Perforations 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Duplicator Green A4 80gsm 0 10 90 
			 Niceday 11x14.5 1 PT 60g Music Ruled 0 0 0 
		
	
	n/a=not available
	
		James MacNaughton Paper Group Ltd paper products
		
			  Percentage 
			 Name of paper used Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Challenger T/Pulp No No No 
			 HMP Offset No No No 
			 HM Manila Yes No 80 
			 Reacto No No No 
			 Prosp/Kingstn No No No 
			 Challenger Velvet No No No 
			 Reflex No No No 
			 Challenger W/Pulp No No No 
			 Supercol No No No 
			 Greybd Yes 100 No

Green Ministers

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the meetings at which his Department has been represented on the delivery of sustainable development across Government as co-ordinated by the Ministerial Sub-committee of Green Ministers.

Charles Clarke: Although the Government publish the title, membership and terms of reference of Cabinet Committees, it has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose details of their proceedings.

Private Finance Initiative

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 30 June 2005, Official Report, column 1672W, on the private finance initiative, what the accounting treatment is of assets and liabilities for each of the listed private finance initiatives and public private partnerships; and whether this treatment is compliant with (a) UK generally accepted accounting practices and (b) international financial reporting standards.

Charles Clarke: The following table shows how the private finance initiative and public private partnership projects, previously listed in 1672W are accounted for by the Home Office. The balance sheet treatment of our private finance initiative and public private partnership projects are determined by an independent auditor following United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice, in accordance with Financial Reporting Standards issued by the independent Accounting Standards Board (ASB). The ASB has a convergence timetable for the adoption of international financial accounting standards, which central Government will follow.
	
		Home Office PFI/PPP Projects
		
			 Commissioning body/Project name Signed Operational On /off balance sheet 
		
		
			 Home Office/ IT 2000 (Sirius) Yes Yes Off 
			 
			 Youth Justice Board/ STC Cookham Wood (Medway) Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Youth Justice Board/ STC Hassockfield Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Youth Justice Board/ STC Rainsbrook (Onley) Expansion Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Youth Justice Board/ STC Oakhill Expansion Yes Yes On 
			 
			 STC HMP & YOI Ashfield/ HMPS Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Altcourse Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Ashford Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Dovegate Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Forest Bank Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Lowdham Grange Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Parc Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Peterborough Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HMP Rye Hill Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ Quantum Yes Yes Off 
			 
			 Passport Service/ PASS Project Yes Yes Off 
			 
			 Home Office/ Home Office Central London Accommodation Strategy (2 Street) Yes Yes Off 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HES 1 Yes Yes On 
			 
			 Prison Service/ HES 2 Yes Yes On

Private Prisons

Elfyn Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the progress of private prisons in England and Wales in meeting the decency agenda.

Fiona Mactaggart: Work to assess progress on the decency agenda continues across the prison estate with a number of projects involving consideration of the contracted estate. These include:
	A large scale longitudinal survey of prisoners (the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction Survey), which will address decency issues across the estate, including in contracted prisons. Work is scheduled to start by the end of 2005 and it is expected that initial data, particularly on prisoners' experiences of the first few weeks of custody, will be available towards the end of 2006.
	A new project, funded by the Home Office, is to be conducted by the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge. This will compare prisoner well-being in private prisons against that in public sector prisons, and those factors which may explain any variance.

Telephone Inquiries

Angus MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities his Department has to deal with telephone inquiries in (a) Welsh, (b) Scots Gaelic and (c) Irish Gaelic.

Charles Clarke: The information is as follows.
	(a) The Central Home Office telephone points for the Home Office, including the Immigration and Nationality Department, do not have facilities for handling calls in Welsh. Her Majesty's Prison Service will handle calls in Welsh via their regional office. Any caller contacting the UK Passport Service call centre from a land line in Wales will be offered the option of continuing the call in Welsh or English.
	(b) and (c) No part of the Department has facilities to handle telephone calls in Scots Gaelic or Irish Gaelic.
	The Department and its agencies do have approved Welsh Language Schemes.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Adoptions

Theresa May: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assurances she has received regarding the legality of British adoptions in other European Union member states that have ratified the European Convention on the Adoption of Children.

Maria Eagle: The 1967 European Convention on the Adoption of Children aims to harmonise the laws in contracting states to promote the welfare of children who are adopted. However, the convention does not provide for international recognition of adoptions made in the UK, or in any other country. Since it is the case that this issue is not covered by any European convention, it remains a matter for each European Union member state which has ratified the convention to decide for itself whether to recognise adoptions made outside its jurisdiction.

Adult Community Learning

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent assessment she has made of the demand for adult community learning.

Phil Hope: We are committed to safeguarding the continued availability of a wide range of learning opportunities for adults for personal and community development. We said in the White Paper "Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work", published in March this year, that the DfES and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) would agree each year an overall indicative budget for such learning programmes.
	We have made no national assessment of demand for adult community learning; at local level it is the LSC's responsibility, with its local stakeholders and providers, to plan provision in the light both of local needs and national priorities.

Adult Community Learning

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on funding for adult community Learning in (a) 2005–06 and (b) 2006–07.

Phil Hope: In funding adult community learning we continue to meet the commitment most recently set out in the White Paper "Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work", published in March this year, that the DfES and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) would agree each year an overall indicative budget for such learning programmes. In 2004/05 nationally we provided over £207 million to the Learning and Skills Council in support of this learning. This has risen to £210 million in 2005/06.
	We will make announcements about the budgets for 2006/07 and 2007/08 shortly.

Adult Learning (Essex)

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to ensure that the requirement for adult learning in Essex is met.

Phil Hope: holding answer 10 October 2005
	We will ensure adult learning provision in Essex is provided through the funding from the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to further education colleges, local authorities and other providers. In 2005/06 we have emphasised our priorities for further education which guarantee a place in education or training for all young people and a focus on support for adults without a solid foundation of employability skills. In 2005/06 total funding for FE will increase by 4.4 per cent. compared to 2004/05. Funding for non-vocational learning opportunities for adults, through the Adult and Community Learning Budget has also increased. In 2004/05 nationally we provided over £207 million to the Learning and Skills Council in support of this learning. This has risen to £210 million in 2005/06.

Employer Training Pilots

Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether funding for the employer training pilots from the Learning and Skills Council is contingent on employees completing NVQ qualifications (a) in part and (b) in full; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: Funding for Employer Training Pilots (ETPs) is weighted towards the successful completion of qualifications by participating employees.
	Training Providers receive 20 per cent. of training costs at the start of training, on receipt of Individual Learner Record registration from the awarding body; 30 per cent. of training costs on receipt of a certificate confirming participating employees have reached the mid-point of their training; and 50 per cent. of training costs when learners complete their training, on receipt of evidence of internal verification from the provider and subsequent certificate from the awarding body.
	Wage compensation to a participating employee's employer is paid only on their completion of training.

Looked-after Children

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many looked-after children entered higher education in each of the last three years in (a) England, (b) each region and (c) each local authority; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: The information available is shown in the following table:
	
		Number and percentage of former care leavers who were in higher education on their 19th birthday and who were looked after on1 April in their 17th year, 2002–2004(7) -- Number
		
			  Number of former care leavers Number in Higher Education (above A level) 
			  2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 England 4,700 4,900 5,100 200 300 300 
			
			 North East 240 250 260 10 10 10 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Durham 40 45 45 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Northumberland 30 35 25 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Darlington 10 10 5 0 (8)— 0 
			 Hartlepool (8)— 5 10 0 0 0 
			 Middlesbrough 5 10 10 (8)— 0 0 
			 Redcar and Cleveland (8)— 10 10 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Stockton On Tees 20 10 10 0 0 (8)— 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Gateshead 30 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Newcastle Upon Tyne 30 35 40 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 North Tyneside 25 20 25 0 0 (8)— 
			 South Tyneside 20 20 20 0 0 (8)— 
			 Sunderland 25 25 35 (8)— 0 0 
			
			 North West 670 680 700 20 30 20 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Cheshire 40 45 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Cumbria 35 40 40 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Lancashire 125 110 115 5 10 10 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Blackburn and Darwen 20 20 25 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Blackpool 20 20 15 0 (8)— 0 
			 Halton 10 15 10 0 0 0 
			 Warrington 5 10 15 0 0 0 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Bolton 25 20 15 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Bury 15 15 20 0 0 0 
			 Knowsley 10 20 20 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Liverpool 70 85 80 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Manchester 85 75 95 0 0 (8)— 
			 Oldham 25 20 20 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Rochdale 20 15 10 0 0 0 
			 Salford 30 35 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Sefton 10 20 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 St Helens 20 20 20 0 (8)— 0 
			 Stockport 30 25 25 0 0 0 
			 Tameside 15 10 15 (8)— 0 0 
			 Trafford 10 10 20 0 (8)— 0 
			 Wigan 25 25 15 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Wirral 20 25 35 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			
			 Yorkshire and The Humber 470 470 490 10 (8)— 10 
			 Shire Counties   
			 North Yorkshire 40 35 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 East Riding Yorkshire 10 15 10 0 0 (8)— 
			 Kingston Upon Hull 40 35 40 0 0 (8)— 
			 North East Lincolnshire 20 20 15 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 North Lincolnshire 15 15 15 0 0 (8)— 
			 York 10 10 15 0 (8)— 0 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Barnsley 20 30 25 (8)— 0 0 
			 Bradford 50 45 45 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Calderdale 20 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Doncaster 30 20 30 (8)— 0 0 
			 Kirklees 35 35 30 0 0 0 
			 Leeds 85 70 85 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Rotherham 15 25 25 0 0 0 
			 Sheffield 35 50 50 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Wakefield 40 30 50 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			
			 East Midlands 310 300 330 10 10 10 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Derbyshire 45 50 55 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Leicestershire 25 25 30 0 0 0 
			 Lincolnshire 35 40 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Northamptonshire 75 50 75 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Nottinghamshire 35 35 30 (8)— 0 0 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Derby 25 30 35 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Leicester 30 25 30 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Nottingham 40 40 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Rutland (8)— (8)— (8)— 0 0 0 
			
			 West Midlands 510 520 540 40 20 30 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Shropshire 30 15 25 10 (8)— 0 
			 Staffordshire 45 60 50 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Warwickshire 50 35 40 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Worcestershire 45 50 55 (8)— 5 (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Herefordshire 20 20 15 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 20 30 25 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Telford and Wrekin 20 20 15 (8)— 0 0 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Birmingham 135 135 155 (8)— 5 (8)— 
			 Coventry 20 30 25 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Dudley 20 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Sandwell 35 35 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Solihull 25 15 30 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Walsall 20 25 25 0 (8)— 0 
			 Wolverhampton 25 20 25 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			
			 East of England 410 410 410 10 20 20 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Bedfordshire 30 25 30 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Cambridgeshire 40 45 35 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Essex 85 105 85 (8)— 10 (8)— 
			 Hertfordshire 70 65 70 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Norfolk 75 55 50 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Suffolk 35 45 45 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Luton 15 10 30 0 0 (8)— 
			 Peterborough 25 20 20 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Southend 20 20 15 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Thurrock 15 20 25 0 (8)— (8)— 
			
			 London 1,100 1,150 1,310 70 140 110 
			 Inner London 520 560 660 40 60 50 
			 Camden 35 30 45 10 5 (8)— 
			 City of London 0 (8)— (8)— 0 0 0 
			 Greenwich 30 40 35 0 0 0 
			 Hackney 50 55 50 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 45 45 60 (8)— (8)— 5 
			 Islington 40 70 70 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 30 35 30 (8)— 0 5 
			 Lambeth 70 85 120 (8)— 10 15 
			 Lewisham 50 50 60 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Southwark 70 60 80 10 5 (8)— 
			 Tower Hamlets 25 20 30 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Wandsworth 35 50 35 (8)— 15 (8)— 
			 Westminster 35 20 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			
			 Outer London 580 590 640 20 80 60 
			 Barking and Dagenham 25 25 35 0 (8)— 0 
			 Barnet 35 25 25 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Bexley 25 15 30 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Brent 30 30 40 (8)— (8)— 5 
			 Bromley 40 25 30 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Croydon 30 45 60 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Ealing 40 50 45 (8)— 5 15 
			 Enfield 35 30 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Haringey 40 55 80 0 10 (8)— 
			 Harrow 25 30 10 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Havering 20 10 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Hillingdon 45 75 60 0 (8)— 10 
			 Hounslow 20 25 30 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Kingston Upon Thames 20 15 15 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Merton 15 15 15 0 (8)— 0 
			 Newham 45 35 40 (8)— 5 5 
			 Redbridge 10 10 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Richmond Upon Thames 15 15 20 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Sutton 5 20 10 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Waltham Forest 65 40 30 (8)— 30 (8)— 
			
			 South East 610 700 650 20 40 20 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Buckinghamshire 30 30 20 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 East Sussex 40 35 35 0 0 (8)— 
			 Hampshire 80 85 75 10 (8)— (8)— 
			 Kent 120 135 135 5 5 (8)— 
			 Oxfordshire 30 35 40 0 0 (8)— 
			 Surrey 55 70 65 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 West Sussex 65 100 85 0 10 10 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Bracknell Forest 5 15 20 0 0 0 
			 Brighton and Hove 25 25 30 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Isle of Wight 15 15 10 0 0 0 
			 Medway Towns 25 25 25 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Milton Keynes 25 25 25 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Portsmouth 10 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Reading 25 15 10 (8)— 0 0 
			 Slough 15 10 15 0 0 (8)— 
			 Southampton 20 25 20 0 (8)— 0 
			 West Berkshire 10 10 5 0 0 0 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 10 10 10 0 0 0 
			 Wokingham 10 5 (8)— 0 0 0 
			
			 South West 420 440 450 20 20 30 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Cornwall 45 45 50 (8)— (8)— 5 
			 Devon 70 55 65 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Dorset 25 25 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Gloucestershire 45 35 45 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Isles Of Scilly 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Somerset 35 40 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Wiltshire 25 25 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Bath and North East Somerset 15 10 15 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Bournemouth 15 20 15 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Bristol 45 75 45 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 North Somerset 15 20 10 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Plymouth 30 30 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Poole 15 10 10 (8)— 0 0 
			 South Gloucestershire 10 15 15 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Swindon 10 20 15 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Torbay 15 20 25 0 0 (8)— 
		
	
	(7) Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements.
	(8) Figures between 1 and 5 have been suppressed.
	Notes:
	1. Figures are taken from the Department's SSDA 903 return.
	2. National figures are rounded to the nearest 100. Regional figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
	3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5.
	Source:
	DFES

Paternal Rights

Theresa Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to improve the enforcement of fathers' rights to contact with their children.

Maria Eagle: The Government believe that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following divorce or separation, where it is safe and in the child's best interests. The Children Act 1989 supports this and under the Act it is the welfare and interests of the child concerned that are paramount, not the rights of parents.
	Where contact has been agreed or ordered by the courts, it is essential that the terms of court orders are followed. The Children and Adoption Bill has introduced legislation which, if approved by Parliament, will give judges additional powers to facilitate contact and enforce contact orders. In addition to the current system of fines and imprisonment, they will be able to refer parents to a counsellor or a parenting programme or make enforcement orders imposing requirements for unpaid work. Judges will also be able to award financial compensation, for example where the cost of a holiday has been lost. These additional levers will be available to the courts at any stage in a contact case, if the court considers they would assist resolution. These provisions will be available for use by the courts in relation to both mothers and fathers.

Youth Matters Green Paper

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the opportunity card proposed in the Youth Matters Green Paper will be connected to the National Identity Register proposed in the Identity Cards Bill.

Maria Eagle: We currently propose that the Opportunity Card will be available to young people from age 13 up to 19. It will be delivered by local authorities and be available in England only. The UK-wide National Identity Register will cover people age 16 and over but my Department is currently discussing with the Home Office how the two schemes might be linked.

Youth Matters Green Paper

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the future of the Connexions card in the light of the entitlement card proposed in the Youth Matters Green Paper.

Maria Eagle: We will make decisions about the future of the Connexions card when we have completed the evaluation of the Youth Opportunity Card pilots.

Youth Matters Green Paper

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the companies that have expressed an interest in working with the Government to develop the entitlement card scheme proposed in the Youth Matters Green Paper.

Maria Eagle: As of 6 October 2005, Transport for London and Mouchel Parkman had expressed an interest in working with the Department for Education and Skills to develop the Youth Opportunity Card.

Youth Matters Green Paper

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the existing youth cards schemes that will be brought together within the entitlement card scheme proposed in the Youth Matters Green Paper.

Maria Eagle: We are at the early stages of design and have not yet selected the areas that will take part in the pilots. Once we know the pilot areas, we will be clear about which card schemes we need to work with and build on.

Youth Matters Green Paper

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her estimate is of the cost to business of installing equipment necessary to read the information stored on the entitlement card proposed in the Youth Matters Green Paper.

Maria Eagle: We are still at the early stage of pilot design. Youth Matters makes clear our expectation that we will build where possible on existing schemes and infrastructure. However this is a pilot, and one of the aspects we want to test is the impact on providers and businesses.

Youth Matters Green Paper

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what data she intends will be stored on the entitlement card proposed in the Youth Matters Green Paper.

Maria Eagle: The Youth Opportunity Card pilot will test whether giving real influence and spending power to young people increases their likelihood of engaging in constructive activities. At this early stage in pilot development, and before the end of the Youth Matters consultation, no decisions have been taken about what data a card would need to store.

CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT

Divis Mountain Transmitter

Jeffrey M Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the transmitter on Divis Mountain provides freeview coverage for the whole of the City of Lisburn; and if she will make a statement.

James Purnell: Most households in Lisburn should be able to receive digital terrestrial television (DTT) services, although there may be problems with reception towards the north west of the area.
	The regional timetable for digital switchover has now been published, with the Ulster region due to be switched in the second half of 2012.
	Our plans are based on the conversion of the entire terrestrial network, so that the level of coverage at switchover can match existing analogue coverage—around 98.5 per cent. of households. This is in line with our commitments that everyone who can currently receive analogue services today should be able to receive them in digital form and that as many people as possible have access to a choice of platforms.

Licensing Fees (Charities)

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the rates charities, who operate licensed premises, are charged for their new licensing fee.

James Purnell: The licensing fees have been set centrally by Government at a level to enable licensing authorities to recover fully their legitimate administration, inspection and enforcement costs, while at the same time achieve arrangements which are fair to business, non commercial organisations and to other individuals seeking licences. The Government have established an Independent Licensing Fees Review Panel to consider whether the fees regime is meeting these objectives. The panel will deliver an interim review shortly, followed by a final report in autumn 2006.

National Sports Foundation

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much will be allocated to the National Sports Foundation (a) in 2005–06 and (b) for each subsequent year for which budgets have been agreed.

Richard Caborn: holding answer 10 October 2005
	The total allocated to the National Sports Foundation is £27.5 million. For 2006–07, £7.5 million has been allocated and for 2007–08, £20 million has been allocated.

National Sports Foundation

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from sports bodies on the National Sports Foundation.

Richard Caborn: holding answer 10 October 2005
	We have been engaged in extensive and ongoing discussions with five major sports governing bodies. These discussions continue.

Reserve Art Collections

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many items in national museums and galleries have not been on public display in the past three years.

David Lammy: The number of collection items in the DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries that have not been on public display in the past three years has recently been estimated to be around 105 million. These items are very diverse, and include large amounts of organic material and archaeological finds which are not suitable for public display; for example, a study in 2002 showed that the Natural History Museum has 70 million organic items in storage. Many of the items not on display such as books and archive material, prints, photographs and textiles are available to the public on request. The large majority of works of art not on display comprise of prints or items in need of conservation. Our museums and galleries actively pursue a policy of loans and touring exhibitions throughout the UK and overseas to ensure that their collections are accessible to as wide an audience as possible.

Reserve Art Collections

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the most recent estimate was of the size of the reserve collections of the national museums and galleries.

David Lammy: My Department last made an estimate of items in the reserve collections of 17 DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries in 2002 as part of a study of storage facilities. This showed that there were more than 136 million items in storage.

Reserve Art Collections

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the last estimate was made of the number of works of art in the reserve collections of the national museums and galleries.

David Lammy: My Department last made an estimate of items in the reserve collections of 17 DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries in 2002 as part of a study of storage facilities. This study covered all types of collection items stored, including works of art.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Ambassadors (Misconduct)

Andrew MacKinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints of misconduct made against Her Majesty's Ambassadors by subordinate staff are outstanding; how long each case has been outstanding; whether investigations in each case have been concluded; and when in each case it is anticipated the complaint will be determined.

Jack Straw: None.

Bangladesh

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring of human rights in Bangladesh is being undertaken by his officials; and what assistance has been offered to deal with investigations into assassination attempts.

Kim Howells: The British high commission in Dhaka closely monitors human rights in Bangladesh. The high commission has regular dialogue with the Government of Bangladesh and lobbies bilaterally and jointly with EU partners on issues identified as key human rights priorities in Bangladesh. The high commission also has regular contacts with human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and activists in Bangladesh, and provides funding to NGOs for human rights programmes.
	Where we can and when invited to do so, we work with the Bangladeshi authorities to improve their capacity to identify and prosecute those involved in extremist activities. After the grenade attack in Sylhet in May 2004 in which the British high commissioner was injured, there were visits to Bangladesh by specialist Metropolitan police officers to advise and assist local agencies with their investigations. Following their return, the Metropolitan Police Service offered further practical assistance and informal advice to the Bangladeshi authorities.

Commonwealth Day

Michael Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department plans to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Commonwealth Day.

Ian Pearson: We are in touch with the Council of Commonwealth Societies, the Commonwealth Secretariat and Commonwealth Governments about how best to commemorate Commonwealth Day 2006. No plans have yet been made for the 50th Commonwealth Day, due in March 2007.

Diplomatic Immunity

Michael Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list offences committed overseas in 2004 by UK nationals holding diplomatic immunity.

Kim Howells: We are not aware of any offences committed overseas in 2004 by UK nationals holding diplomatic immunity.

G8 Summit

Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people who were (a) delegates and (b) representatives of the media attended the G8 summit in Gleneagles, broken down by country of representation.

Jack Straw: The total number of accredited delegates to the G8 Summit was 2,358, broken down as follows:
	G8: United Kingdom: 70; Canada: 171; France: 127; Germany: 75; Italy: 74; Japan: 473; Russia: 439; USA: 489. European Commission: 24
	Outreach nations/international organisations: Algeria: 13; Brazil: 73; China: 140; Ethiopia: five; Ghana: 11; India: 26; Mexico: 40; Nigeria: 20; Senegal: five; South Africa: 41; Tanzania: six; African Union: nine; International Energy Agency (IEA): five; International Monetary Fund (IMF): six; World Bank: five; UN: 13; World Trade Organisation (WTO): five.
	A total of 3,051 members of the media were accredited, though not all attended the summit. The majority of these accredited independently so did not represent a particular country. 701 were attached to the delegations, broken down as follows:
	G8: United Kingdom: 40; Canada: 25; France: 56; Germany: 28; Italy: 0; Japan: 35; Russia: 78; USA: 268. European Commission: 0
	Outreach nations/international organisations: Algeria: 16; Brazil: two; China: 67; Ethiopia: four; Ghana: 10; India: 31; Mexico: 15; Nigeria: eight; Senegal: four; South Africa: 12; Tanzania: 0; African Union: 0; World Bank: one; UN: one; WTO: 0; IEA: 0; IMF: 0.

Handcuffs (Exports)

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is on the export of over-sized handcuffs; to which countries over-sized handcuffs are not allowed to be exported; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement.

Kim Howells: All export licence applications for over-sized handcuffs are assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. The UK Government does not allow the export of over-sized handcuffs where they might be used as part of leg-irons or shackles. We are fully committed to this policy and to the rigorous and transparent implementation of our export controls. European Union member states have adopted a Council Regulation (EC) No. 1236/2005 (O.J.L200, 30.7.2005), which will enter into force on 30 July 2006, concerning the trade in goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This regulation includes provisions governing the transfer of handcuffs. The regulation is consistent with the UK's current policy on the export of over-sized handcuffs.

Iraq

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the (a) role, (b) mandate, (c) budget, (d) diplomatic status, (e) level of support to be accorded by UK diplomats to, (f) level of security accorded to and (g) level of security caveated documents releasable to the European Union Rule of Law Mission for Iraq.

Kim Howells: The role of the EU Rule of Law Mission is to provide training for up to 770 senior and high-potential officials primarily from the police, judiciary and penitentiary to strengthen management capacity and improve skills and procedures in criminal investigation, in full respect for the rule of law and human rights.
	Training takes place in the EU. Trainers and training courses are supplied and funded by contributing EU member states while the EU funds the common costs for the mission. This includes the organisational and management staff and the administrative costs for the mission. The mission has a co-ordinating office in Brussels, and a liaison office in Baghdad, which co-ordinates between the Iraqi authorities and the course organisers.
	The mission's mandate was granted by a Joint Action agreed by the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 7 March 2005.
	The budget for the common costs of the mission is sourced from the Common Foreign Security Policy Budget and is €10 million. This covers the administrative costs of the Brussels co-ordination office and the Baghdad liaison office.
	Members of the Baghdad liaison office do not have diplomatic status. This means that they are subject to Iraqi law. The British embassy and members of the office are currently negotiating diplomatic recognition with the Iraqi authorities, which would give them a level of immunity under Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17.
	The UK provides accommodation and security and protection services for the five-person Baghdad liaison office. The EU reimburses the UK for the services provided.
	Members of the EU team based in Iraq are accorded the same levels of protection as British diplomats.
	The Baghdad liaison office is situated inside the British embassy building. This is in a secure, guarded compound, inside the international zone. Transfers to and from the airport are by helicopter.
	The release of classified documents outside of normal government channels such as to the EU is decided on a case by case basis. The originator of the document has the final say over its release and documents would be edited to remove any information where its release would be damaging.

Private Finance Initiative

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 15 June 2005, Official Report, columns 474–78W, on the private finance initiative, what total value of assets and liabilities for each of the listed private finance initiatives and public private partnerships is recorded on the Government balance sheet; what proportion of assets and liabilities is listed; what the accounting treatment is for assets and liabilities; and whether it is compatible with (a) generally-accepted accounting practices and (b) international financial reporting standards.

Jack Straw: In connection with the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract with Arteos, the British embassy in Berlin is recorded at a book value of £9,672,347.18 within the departmental balance sheet of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as at 31 March 2005 (unaudited).
	The PFI contract with Global Crossing is treated as off-balance sheet.
	The public private partnerships (PPP) contract with Hewlett Packard is included as a capital commitment in the departmental resource accounts for the year ended 31 March 2005 which states that the capital commitment is estimated at £83 million over seven years of the total value of the contract of £179 million, the balance to be expensed when incurred.
	The accounting policy in respect of PFI transactions is stated in the resource accounts as follows.
	"PFI transactions have been accounted for in accordance with the Resource Accounting Manual (RAM) requirements. Where the balance of the risks and rewards of ownership of the PFI property are borne by the PFI operator, the PFI payments are recorded as an operating cost. Where the FCO has contributed assets, a prepayment for their fair value is recognised and amortised over the life of the PFI contract. Where at the end of the PFI contract a property reverts to the FCO, the difference between the expected fair value of the residual on reversion and any agreed payment on reversion is built up over the life of the contract by capitalising part of the unitary charge each year. Where the balance of risks and rewards of ownership of the PFI property is borne by the FCO, the property is recognised as a fixed asset and the liability to pay for it is accounted for as a finance lease. Contract payments are apportioned between a reduction in the capital obligation and charges to the Operating Cost Statement for service performance and finance cost."
	This is in accordance with HM Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual which is compatible with generally accepted accounting practices and is broadly compatible with international financial reporting standards. The convergence of Government Accounting and international financial reporting standards is subject to consideration and review by the Financial Reporting Advisory Board and the Treasury.

Western Sahara

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with (a) Morocco and (b) UN officials on a possible referendum on the future of the Western Sahara.

Kim Howells: I discussed the question of Western Sahara with Moroccan Ministers and senior officials in July.
	The United Kingdom fully supports the efforts of the UN Secretary-General and his new Personal Envoy to Western Sahara, Peter van Walsum, to find a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution to the Western Sahara dispute. The UK supported UN Security Council resolution 1598, adopted on 28 April, which extends the mandate of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara until 31 October 2005. However, there are no plans for a UN referendum to be held in the near future.
	We continue to urge all parties to the dispute to engage constructively with the UN. To this end senior UK officials regularly meet UN officials, including recently with Peter van Walsum.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Benefit Fraud Hotline

Stephen Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  what contracts have been awarded to advertising and public relations agencies in connection with the benefit fraud hotline in each year since the service commenced; and what the value of each contract was;
	(2)  how much was spent on advertising and communications to promote the benefit fraud hotline in each year since the service started.

James Plaskitt: The Department has not run any campaigns specifically to promote the benefit fraud hotline since 2001, although the number has been featured in the targeting benefit fraud campaign since 2001. We could only provide details regarding contracts awarded to advertising agencies prior to 2001 at disproportionate cost. This is because we have no centrally held records relating to the awarding of such contracts.
	There have been no contracts awarded to public relations agencies.
	National Benefit Fraud Hotline advertising costs from 1996 to 2001 are in the following table.
	
		National Benefit Fraud Hotline advertising costs
		
			  £ 
		
		
			 1996–97 476,000 
			 1997–98 225,000 
			 1998–99 290,247 
			 1999–2000 337,672 
			 2000–01 425,178

Incapacity Benefit

Roger Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incapacity benefit claimants there have been in each year since 2001, broken down by region and diagnosis.

Margaret Hodge: The information has been placed in the Library.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Julie Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate, how many (a) adults and (b) adults aged (i) 16 to 24, (ii) 25 to 49, (iii) 50 to 55, (iv) 55 to 59 and (v) over 60 years made a claim for jobseeker's allowance in the last year for which figures are available; and of these how many (A) left the benefit within six months, (B) left the benefit within six months and claimed another benefit, (C) left the benefit within six months and returned to work and (D) left the benefit within six months, returned to work, but claimed another benefit within a year.

James Plaskitt: The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the following table. The figures in the table refer to the number of awards of jobseeker's allowance. Claimants can flow on and off benefit more than once, therefore it is not possible to calculate the number of people flowing onto jobseeker's allowance within a year.
	
		Jobseeker's allowance new awards by age of claimant inGreat Britain: July 2004 to June 2005
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 All ages 2,389,140 
			 16–24 932,460 
			 25–49 1,152,425 
			 50–54 147,635 
			 55–59 130,825 
			 60 and over 25,790 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures are based on 100 per cent. claimant count, and are rounded to the nearest 5.
	2. Figures refer to number of awards and not people flowing onto jobseeker's allowance.
	3. Claimants can flow on and off benefit more than once.
	4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
	Source:
	Count of unemployment-related benefits, Jobcentre Plus computer systems (computer held cases only).

Pathways to Work

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many existing recipients of incapacity benefit have attended a work focused interview through the Pathways to Work pilots since February; and how many have received the job preparation premium.

Margaret Hodge: As part of the extension of Pathways to Work to existing customers, 6,200 existing recipients of incapacity benefit have attended a mandatory work focused interview (WFI) between 7 February 2005 and the end of June 2005.
	Participants have access to an extensive menu of support and back to work help. Between 7 February and the end of June 26 job preparation premium (JPP) awards were made.

Tax Credits

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of households in receipt of tax credit awards were receiving less money than their actual weekly entitlement due to an in-year adjustment to their awards or payments on 31 January; and what percentage of households receiving less money than their actual entitlement were households on maximum tax credit receiving less than 30 per cent. of their weekly tax credit entitlement.

Dawn Primarolo: I have been asked to reply.
	The information requested is not available.
	Tax credit awards can be adjusted during the year to take account of a change in circumstances or income. Where the amount payable is reduced, payments are adjusted with the aim of paying out the right amount for the year as a whole. This is explained in HMRC's Code of Practice 26 "What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit?", which is accessible at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/leaflets/cop26.htm. This is part of the normal operation of the tax credit system, and no count of such occurrences is maintained.

Wareham Job Centre

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons it is proposed to reduce the opening times of the Wareham Job Centre to two days a week.

Margaret Hodge: holding answer 10 October 2005
	The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Acting Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. She will write to the hon. Member.
	Letter from Lesley Strathie to Annette Brooke, dated 11 October 2005
	The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the proposed reduction in opening hours for Wareham Jobcentre. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
	We have recently reviewed the way in which we deliver our services from our Jobcentre Plus offices and we are proposing that some of our smaller sites will be open for the number of days most appropriate to meeting the needs of our customers. Some of our offices have become too small to support all of the specialist advisory services which we will provide to those who need most assistance in entering employment. Wareham Jobcentre is one of those offices involved in the review.
	We propose to deliver many of these services from nearby larger Jobcentre Plus offices together with improved access to our services through telephone and e-channels. We will, however, continue to deliver job search activity for jobseekers and some tailored advisory support to individuals from smaller offices such as Wareham, after the change in opening times.
	Further proposals are under consideration with regard to opening on additional days, if this is considered necessary, to offer a targeted service to our most disadvantaged customers. This would be in addition to the days the office would normally be open, to meet the needs of our customers already actively seeking employment. This proposal is in the early stages of being considered and no decision has yet been made. The Jobcentre Plus District Manager for Dorset and Somerset, will inform you once a decision has been reached.
	You have my assurance that it is our intention to continue to provide our customers with a service designed to target their needs. These changes will allow us to improve upon the services which we provide.
	I hope this is helpful.

HEALTH

Anti-psychotic Drugs

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 11 July 2005, Official Report, column 716W, on anti-psychotic drugs, if she will break down each category by those aged (a) 50 to 64, (b) 65 to 74, (c) 75 years and over.

Jane Kennedy: Table one shows the total number of suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports received via the yellow card scheme from 1 January to 31 December for each of the last five years, for all anti-psychotic drugs, traditional anti-psychotics and atypical anti-psychotics.
	Tables two and three show a breakdown by age groups 50 to 64, 65 to 74 and 75 years and over for traditional and atypical anti-psychotics respectively.
	
		Table 1: Reports received via the yellow card scheme foranti-psychotics
		
			  Number of reports for: 
			  All anti-psychotics Traditional anti-psychotics Atypical anti-psychotics 
		
		
			 2000 1,000 100 913 
			 2001 1,189 105 1,097 
			 2002 1,395 90 1,316 
			 2003 1,774 115 1,680 
			 2004 2,004 78 1,933 
		
	
	
		Table 2: Traditional anti-psychotics
		
			  50–64 years 65–74 years 75 and over 
		
		
			 2000 11 13 12 
			 2001 20 14 13 
			 2002 16 10 12 
			 2003 21 16 19 
			 2004 13 11 7 
		
	
	
		Table 3: Atypical anti-psychotics
		
			  50–64 years 65–74 years 75 and over 
		
		
			 2000 150 50 47 
			 2001 226 51 61 
			 2002 219 59 66 
			 2003 311 75 84 
			 2004 328 68 73 
		
	
	Note:
	The sum of reports for traditional and atypical anti-psychotics do not equal the number of reports for all anti-psychotics as some reports have more than one suspected anti-psychotic drug.
	Age was not provided in 14 per cent.—68 reports—for traditional anti-psychotics and 5 per cent.—348 reports—for atypical anti-psychotics.
	It is important to note that a report of an adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug. Many factors have to be taken into account in assessing causal relationships including temporal association, the possible contribution of concomitant medication and the underlying disease.

Children in Care (Costs)

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average annual cost to public funds of maintaining a child in care has been in each of the last six years for which figures are available.

Maria Eagle: I have been asked to reply.
	The average gross annual expenditure per looked after child (average includes those in foster care and those in children's homes) in England for the latest available six years is as follows:
	
		
			  £ 
		
		
			 1998–99 (9)19,920 
			 1999–2000 21,270 
			 2000–01 26,100 
			 2001–02 25,300 
			 2002–03 29,100 
			 2003–04 32,100 
		
	
	(9) Figures above and below the blank row in the table are not calculated on the same basis. From 2000–01, the unit cost includes capital charges and management and support costs. These costs were excluded prior to that date. The categories of service included in the cost also changed from 2000–01—the main change being the inclusion of social services expenditure on boarding schools. From 2000–01, the unit cost also takes into account nights spent in boarding schools, placed for adoption and respite nights.
	Source:
	Prior to 2000–01 form KS1, and for 2000–01 onwards form PSS EX1.

Chiron

Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what products Chiron supplies to the NHS.

Jane Kennedy: Chiron has three divisions, which supply the following products to the national health service:
	Chiron Vaccines
	Flu vaccine
	Rabies vaccine
	Cholera vaccine
	Diamorphine injection
	Chiron Biopharmaceuticals
	Tobi (300 milligrams/5 millilitres tobramycin nebulised solution)
	Proleukin (Aldesleukin/ IL-2)
	Chiron Blood Testing
	Procleix HIV-1/HCV Assay.

Diagnostic Scans

Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health which (a) primary care trusts, (b) hospital trusts and (c) strategic health authorities made representations to her Department about the impact of Alliance Medical providing diagnostic scanning services in the NHS on the utilization of existing diagnostic scanning capacity within the NHS.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 12 July 2005
	This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, as the Department has many routine operational discussions with the national health service relating to these services.

GP Appointments

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have (a) requested and (b) received an appointment to see a general practitioner within 48 hours in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Mid-Bedfordshire and (ii) the County of Bedfordshire in each year since 2000.

Rosie Winterton: This information is not collected in the format requested and the information that is collected centrally cannot be disaggregated to practices as each practice is anonymised within the primary care access survey.
	The latest information available, September 2005, shows that 100 per cent. of patients were offered a general practitioner consultation within two working days in each of the three primary care trusts that cover Bedfordshire (Bedford, Luton and Bedfordshire and Hertlands).

Prostate Cancer

John Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with the Healthcare Commission on the waiting time targets for prostate cancer patients.

Rosie Winterton: holding answer 10 October 2005
	I have had no discussions with the Healthcare Commission on the waiting times targets for prostate cancer. The national health service cancer plan sets out our strategy to reduce waiting times for cancer patients. There are two targets for cancer patients to be achieved from the end of December 2005, of a maximum 31 day wait from diagnosis of cancer to start of treatment and 62 days from urgent referral for suspected cancer to first treatment. Prostate cancer patients fall within these groups. Achievement of these targets will form part of the Healthcare Commission's assessment of existing targets for 2005–06.

Recycling

Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what percentage of paper for printed publications used by the Department in 2003–04 and 2004–05 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained;
	(2)  what measures she has put in place to ensure that her Department meets the targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all copying paper for printed publications brought by the Department is 60 per cent. recycled, of which a minimum is 75 per cent. post-consumer waste.

Jane Kennedy: For parliamentary work carried out by the Central Office of Information (COI), for example Command Papers, Acts and other departmental papers, the minimum recycled fibre content required is 75 per cent. for coated and 100 per cent. for uncoated papers, virgin fibre pulp being elemental chlorine free or preferably totally chlorine free. Mill broke is not included in the recycled fibre content. Applying the National Association of Paper Merchants definition for recycled content, the recycled fibre can include converter's waste, printer's waste and post consumer waste from homes and offices.
	For all other printed publications produced in 2003–04 and 2004–05, the Department has no central record of paper source and content, and could not obtain these without incurring disproportionate cost. However, the selection of paper stock and its recycled and environmental properties currently rests with the COI.